Posts by Martin

Whereas the analogy with the Lorentz transform is valid, the math and some other details might need further correction. I expect to dedicate some time slots with sufficient ability to concentrate to figure this out soon. Depending on what I come up with, I will write it here or in a private message. Regarding the normalization and Entailment 2 (where I got stuck the last time I worked on the paper), a video call might be good. (Teams or Zoom work well for me).

From an Epicurean perspective, a guilty conscience may be considered a preconception if it has arisen from socialization in one's group and not from religious indoctrination. Such a preconception may be more efficient than fear of punishment.

Welcome Claire!

Welcome Hyakinthos!

Welcome D Campbell!

As speed has a unit, the normalization would need to be a bit more elaborate than just equating s with 1. One way to normalize would be to divide b by s but that might require adapting some of the text. I found no mistake in the text so far, but as mentioned, I need more time to finish.

I am halfway through with reading the publication und do not yet know by when I will finish and provide a more detailed reply.
I send this quickly in advance just in case there is a follow-up publication in the works: Please hold back or correct a mistake in the derivation:
After the correct equation b = sqr(s² - a²), a factor s is missing, which carries through in the subsequent equations.

Welcome JCBlackmon!

I am a physicist, too, and guess the derivation is similar to the derivation from the absolute constance of the speed of light and the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference. Please explain or share a link to your publication.

Welcome EdGenX!

Further improving bodies with implants, exoskeletons, brain interfaces and the like and extending lifespans is likely to happen. Full transhumanism by leaving the body/uploading something to machinery is a delusion. What can be uploaded is a reductionist copy of some aspects. I would not consider that as continuation of my existence. Transhumanism is an idea motivated by fear of death. Getting rid of the fear of death in accordance with Epicurus' philosophy and modern science and eventually embracing death when it happens (or suicide when pain permanently outweighs pleasure) makes more sense to me.

Here are examples of what has worked for me:

Chocolate mousse:
In the past, I splurged on chocolate mousse at a buffet restaurent where I ate about once per week. Eating a lot of chocolate mousse was certainly a bad habit because of the high sugar content.
When the restaurant changed from a big bowl, from which I would take several portions per meal, to prefilled small cups, this helped in providing a simple way to measure and limit the consumption.
I found that 3 cups provided already the maximum pleasure of the moment and more would go into saturation. Later on, I took only two cups and partially compensated the loss of pleasure by eating other tasty food with no sugar added.
After a while of keeping to the temporary habit of eating only two cups, the urge for a third cup/lack of the related pleasure disappeared. So, I limited the intake to one cup per meal, whereby I chose the cup which appeared to be filled the most.
After a while, the craving for a second cup disappeared. Then, I chose the cup which appeared to be filled the least.
After a while, the craving for that small amount disappeared. I did not take any more chocolate mousse and no other sweetened dessert. I watched my colleagues eating multiple cups of chocolate mousse and other sweetened desserts, without that I would crave again for the chocolate mousse.

Alcohol:
As a young adult, I rarely drank alcohol but when I did, I sometimes did binge-drinking. Each hangover made me dislike the particular type of alcoholic drink for an increasingly longer period, and eventually the dislike became permanent. In this way, I lost the taste for lager beer, which was bad because it has been the most common social drink in my circles. I felt that losing the taste for an increasing number of alcoholic drinks was bad.
At middle age, I started to drink spirits moderately in the evening during the cool season and almost none during the hot seasons in Thailand. I used a measuring cup to measure the alcohol intake per occasion, observed up to what dose the aftereffects were acceptable and limited the intake to that dose.
Eventually, I got hypertonia, about 5 years ahead of my age group. I measured that at the established limit of alcohol intake, there was a slight but significant increase in blood pressure in the morning.
So, I reduced the limit to half of what I had established before. At that level, it still gave me a little bit of a kick, so there was no big loss in pleasure.
Eventually, I went to a doctor, who prescribed blood pressure medicine, encouraged me to record my blood pressure daily, and answered "No" to my question whether I should discontinue drinking alcohol.
After preliminary retirement, my sleep deprivation disappeared because I could take naps at daytime. In turn, I could no longer fall asleep easily in the evening. I noticed that drinking spirits about half an hour before going to bed helped most of the time with falling asleep. As I monitor my blood pressure and treat it with medicine, I increased the alcohol intake to the limit which I had established in middle age. The further plan is to try to decrease the limit again as long as I can still easily fall asleep at bedtime.

In conclusion, measuring a "bad" habit accurately, observing the effects of dose variation and gradually establishing a healthier habit for better long-term pleasure (health) has worked well while keeping short-term pleasure high.

Below is an example of what happens in other groups, in this case "Philosophy matters" on Facebook as quoted from maybe two months ago. (I thought, I had posted it here already in September but saw only today that it was still an unsent draft):

Quote

INTERESTING PHENOMENON: yesterday we posted three pieces about Spinoza, and shockingly no one called us a crazed spinozist or godless pantheist. There were barely any comments at all, and none of them were extraordinary. Imagine if we had posted thrice about Marx instead. Two days prior to that, we posted one article about feminism and subsequently noticed a curiously large uptick in followers, most of whom had fewer than 20 friends, and who apparently came here just to make incredibly nasty comments about women and feminism (all of which we hid from public view during our troll patrol); the next day, seeing that they got no traction, they all “left”. The botnets are working hard to create dissensus communis. If they’re targeting us, a rinky-dink page dedicated to philosophy, for use of keywords like “marx” or “feminism” (or critical race theory or queer theory or trans philosophy, or any other number of words that the regime does not like), then imagine what they’re doing to other bigger pages with gazillions of followers, who are not as brilliant and discerning as ours.

Welcome Tony Fox!

Welcome Daniel!

The article "Hedonic Treadmill" presents some good to know items but falls short of sound advice.
"Given that set points are not always fixed, a person may also be able to reset it in a positive direction through persistent behaviors such as pursuing altruistic goals."
This is a red flag for BS. Pursuing altruistic goals for an extended period of time is a recipe for burn-out, superiority complex and other disasters.
An alternative usage of the term "hedonic treadmill" refers to seeking out ever "higher" thrills, which becomes counterproductive. Apparently, some introductory courses to philosophy try to use this to reject all hedonic philosophies. The Epicurean answer to that is to use prudence to avoid getting on the hedonic treadmill in that alternative usage. "Hedonic adaptation" is the better word for what the article means with "hedonic treadmill".

Welcome AUtc!

Quote

When I understood Philodemus right, I think the Epicurean view would only match with the Stoic view when the Emotion

1) has harmful consequences ( pleasure then is not choiceworthy for example )
2) is irrational, based on empty believe
3) is based on unnecessary desire

There seems to be a mix-up of two different usages of "irrational":
The usage in the quote seems to indicate that "irrational" is something "bad", against reason, to be avoided.
The other usage is neutral and refers to sensations, emotions, feelings being fundamentally, by definition, irrational, in contrast to something we have obtained with reasoning.

In cases 1) and 3) from the quote, the hedonic calculus may justify pursuing the concerned desire:
1) We sometimes willfully risk pain/harm to obtain greater pleasure or less pain in the future.
3) Epicurus' philosophy does not make us reject all unnecessary desires. Instead, we pursue some of the unnecessary desires when they are natural.

It seems that the Stoic and Epicurean views match far less than what the quote indicates. The Stoic vocabulary in the Wikipedia article is misleading from an Epicurean perspective.

Welcome AthenianGarden!

Welcome MarkJW!

What I observed and found confirmed in Philodemus' writings is that an initial sting of anger is unavoidable/normal/desirable/good and we should address it consciously and acknowledge it. We should anticipate that the interaction of the mind ruminating toward how bad the issue is with glands churning out biochemicals for a fight-or-flight reaction might turn the sting into a rage. By repeated practice of the awareness of the inner escalation and consciously nurturing the desire to stop the escalation, we can prevent the sting from spiraling into a rage. The initial sting is enough to drive us to effective action; the rage would be bad for our health and might propel us to do stupid things.

My turning point was about 26 years ago when I hit something with my fist in a fit of anger in public, luckily without any adverse consequences. Subsequently, I have put effort into intercepting the spiral toward rage, and this prevention of the escalation from sting to rage has become natural for me.